Of course it is. There is no serious debate amongst biologists, or any other legitimate branch of science over ID. The debate is occuring outside the realm of scientific research, where it matters to science about to the extent that farts matters to a hurricane.
It is scientists against scientists.
Really. Name 10 who have published any serious works on the subject. Cite their refereed articles in mainstream science journals.
The Intelligent Design idea was formulted initially by scientists that find Darwin lacking.
It was formulated millenia before Darwin was born, and enforced at gunpoint for 800 years or so, by religeous authorities.
Creationists joined in and they are free to do so, but they are not the source of the debate.
That is palpable hogwash. Were it not for creationists at organization like ICR and Discovery Institute, we'd not be having these debates. Within scientific institutions, ID is a totally minor question, just like crop circles, faces on mars, SETI, cold fusion and UFO research. All of which could be true, but none of which have brought the sort of irresistable, independently verifiable, positive forensic evidence to the table that promotes the likes of quantum theory or evolutionary theory to deserving serious mention in our school science textbooks.
Sorry, either you are misinformed or you intetionally misinform, one is forgiveable the other is not.
I return the compliment.
The fu manchu thing doesn't flow it's just more bad prose. Having said all that creationsists have rights, equal rights. You and other do not have the right to burn them at the stake so to speak, to order them away. We went through all that centuries ago.
Fierce snorting and handwaving does not disguise the blatant historical fact that scientists have been literally burned at the stake for disagreeing with religeous authorities, and NOT the other way around. Creationists and IDers, just like astrologers, homeopathic dilutionists, crystal pyramid power advocates and UFOlogists, (all of whom advocate theories that have never been, and will never be, conclusively disproved by mainstream science) are unfettered and unprosecuted by scientists in any meaningful sense, as one might sense by observing the number of tracts per anum they have been free to publish--which I can assure you dwarf the number of tracts published in defense of Darwinism.
I will suggest to you that waving the bloody shirt of religous extremism of centuries well gone by, is tiresome.
Automatically writing yourself into that history as being on the side of the good is worse. The 20th century saw the murder of between 50 and 100 million people by secular governments. Governments that swore to protect their people from the evils of religion, among other things. Governments that outlawed religion. Personally I am more frightened by those that hate religion than the religious. I might have felt differently in the 15th century, and differently again in he 12th century, but hey I live in the 21st century. As far as your demands for proof. That is funny you offer none whatsover for you views, you simply defame religious people in the name of an incomplete and highly edited historical perspective. Than you wave your arm and demand the names of ten scientists that have published serious articles with numerous qualifiers supplied by you. You haven't done it and neither will I. In any case your entire response was just littered with bad prose lurid imagery of people being burned at the stake, etc. and isn't worthy of a line by line refutation